Belle Vue Vs Wolves, Nss, 27/9/17... Playoff Semi Final 2nd Leg.

[SUPERACE 440]

I don't think anyone's actually said that's the case have they?

Forecast is pretty good for afternoon and evening so needn't worry anyway

Not officially no.

[Fromafar 10,363]

Doesn't matter. They were in the play-offs, as such he can't guest in the play-offs. There's some poorly worded rules in the rulebook, that one is straight forward.

Your forgetting about the "interpretation" though!!! That catches most folk out.!!

[SCB 0]

 

Doesn't matter. They were in the play-offs, as such he can't guest in the play-offs. There's some poorly worded rules in the rulebook, that one is straight forward.

Are Poole in the play-offs?

 

"18.12.6 No Rider, whose Team is in the Play-Offs may appear as a Guest in the Play-Offs."

[Steve0 5,517]

Are Poole in the play-offs?

 

"18.12.6 No Rider, whose Team is in the Play-Offs may appear as a Guest in the Play-Offs."

 

Yes - 4 teams qualified for the play-offs therefore their riders are ineligible to guest. The joys of English pedantry!

 

If you apply your interpretation to the finalists only then it effectively reads that a rider on one team can't guest for the other team - now that's just silly!

 

Hans (or any other Poole rider) cannot guest for any other playoff team.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Steve0

[BWitcher 12,453]

Are Poole in the play-offs?

 

"18.12.6 No Rider, whose Team is in the Play-Offs may appear as a Guest in the Play-Offs."

 

Poole were in the playoffs, at that point any of their riders became ineligible to appear as a guest in the playoffs.

 

At an extreme stretch you might be able to apply your argument to the final, however Poole were 'in' the semi-finals and this is a semi-final match.

[thecoombdog 2,367]

 

Poole were in the playoffs, at that point any of their riders became ineligible to appear as a guest in the playoffs.

 

At an extreme stretch you might be able to apply your argument to the final, however Poole were 'in' the semi-finals and this is a semi-final match.

Yeah exactly. And wasn't the rule introduced because Batch went out in the semis one year and then rode for Poole in the final?

[orion 7,615]

 

Poole were in the playoffs, at that point any of their riders became ineligible to appear as a guest in the playoffs.

 

At an extreme stretch you might be able to apply your argument to the final, however Poole were 'in' the semi-finals and this is a semi-final match.

You can read it many ways ...what you say makes sense but you also say they are no longer in it anymore .

[SCB 0]

Yes - 4 teams qualified for the play-offs therefore their riders are ineligible to guest. The joys of English pedantry!

 

If you apply your interpretation to the finalists only then it effectively reads that a rider on one team can't guest for the other team - now that's just silly!

 

Hans (or any other Poole rider) cannot guest for any other playoff team.

For someone trying to claim pedantry you're doing a poor job.

 

This is simple, are Poole in the play-offs? No. The rule says, "No Rider, whose Team is in the Play-Offs may appear as a Guest in the Play-Offs." not, "No Rider, whose Team was in the Play-Offs may appear as a Guest in the Play-Offs". It another example of the crap rulebook, but reading it as written, the rulebook says that Hans can guest for Poole.

[Phil The Ace 2,860]

Apparently it's R/R for fricke.

[Aces51 2,778]

If they meant it to apply to teams that are knocked out of the play offs they could have said - no rider whose team have qualified for the play offs may appear as a guest in the play offs.

 

Normally, if the meaning isn't clear you look at what the legislators intended, the mischief they were intending to prevent. In this case their intention isn't clear. Did they intend to stop a rider of a team knocked out of the play offs from guesting or did they intend to stop a rider whose team had qualified from guesting even after his team was knocked out?

 

On balance SCB is right. Words are given their normal meaning as defined in the Oxford Dictionary. A team no longer in the play offs is not in the play offs. If they intended the restriction to apply to teams who had qualified until the competition was over they could easily have said so.

[Steve0 5,517]

For someone trying to claim pedantry you're doing a poor job.

 

This is simple, are Poole in the play-offs? No. The rule says, "No Rider, whose Team is in the Play-Offs may appear as a Guest in the Play-Offs." not, "No Rider, whose Team was in the Play-Offs may appear as a Guest in the Play-Offs". It another example of the crap rulebook, but reading it as written, the rulebook says that Hans can guest for Poole.

That's your opinion and interpretation - I disagree.

[A ORLOV 8,628]

For someone trying to claim pedantry you're doing a poor job.

 

This is simple, are Poole in the play-offs? No. The rule says, "No Rider, whose Team is in the Play-Offs may appear as a Guest in the Play-Offs." not, "No Rider, whose Team was in the Play-Offs may appear as a Guest in the Play-Offs". It another example of the crap rulebook, but reading it as written, the rulebook says that Hans can guest for Poole.

Exactly, the F1 car teams have people who are paid a fortune to study every word and every comma in the rule book and take advantage of any ambiguous rules, and this one is extremely ambiguous because it was worded by someone who should not be writing a rule book.

Edited September 28, 2017 by A ORLOV

[Aces51 2,778]

Apparently it's R/R for fricke.

Unfortunately, with the riders available that is our best option but I doubt r/r will score as many points as Fricke. He has been on fire since returning from injury and would have scored about 11/12. We need to see who is the second reserve now but unless it's Smith and he can straightaway regain the form he was in immediately before his injury, I think that will be more points lost.

 

It's going to be difficult but we've just got to give it our best shot and who knows, we may still do it.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Aces51

[Rob B 1,257]

Belle VueAces

Kenneth Bjerre, Steve Worrall, Max Fricke R/R, Rohan Tungate, Craig Cook, Dan Bewley, Rob Shuttleworth (G);

Wolverhampton Wolves

Freddie Lindgren, Kyle Howarth, Rory Schlein, Jacob Thorssell R/R, Sam Masters, Mark Riss, Nathan Greaves; TM: Peter Adams

[stevebrum 6,821]

The pendulum swings back in Wolves favour with Fricke missing. Ridiculous that we have to pander to BT who are not even paying for the privilege of broadcasting the final!

Think it levels it back up but Aces still overwhelming favourites.